It's art precisely because it has no practical use. Meanwhile, driving a mid-sized car or turning on an incandescent lightbulb is an environmental sin, characteristic of our ordinary lives, for which the NYT never tires of shaming us.

Because whatever the specific topic, the real question is who decides?

By definition, whatever the people in charge choose is the correct choice. When individuals choose otherwise, they must be corrected. If they are susceptible to friendly persuasion, fine. If not, there are other methods.

Carbon footprint this, carbon footprint that, I'm sick of all this carbon footprint crap. If it's so important that we reduce our carbon footprints (feetprints?), why aren't those who believe that catastrophe is right around the bend not doing anything to reduce their carbon footprints? Why is Al Gore still flying around the world getting his globe warmed? Why did Obama take Air Force One to NYC so he and Michelle could go out for dinner? What was the carbon footprint of that little trip? Probably more than the carbon footprint of all the 100watt light bulbs in the U.S. for a year. Why did Obama come to Houston for a campaign fundraising trip which probably had a greater carbon footprint than I will have for my whole life and they want me to use those CFL things and put air in my tires. What's wrong with these assholes, have they never heard of Skype?.

Let me suggest that that is because liberalism is no longer really populist. Rather, it is faux populist, with pampered Dem politicians running around the country pretending to feel the pain of the lower classes, but in reality pocketing as much as they can along the way. They are, instead, elitists.

What is often skipped over is that socialism is, by its very nature, elitist. You have some elite who are somehow supposed to be better qualified to order everyone else's lives, and therefore believe themselves entitled to do so. Now, it doesn't really matter that they are inevitably self-appointed.

The hypocrisy comes from the tension and conflict between what they say, in order to win the votes and minds of the lower classes, and what they actually do in their elitist cocoons. They have been getting away with this for a long time, with the active complicity of much of the media, who want in on this elitist lifestyle, or, at least to rub shoulders with those who do belong.

This isn't the first time, and won't be the last that leftists are hypocrites about the environment and AGW. Remember Hopenhagen? The global confag a year or two ago where global warming gurus and pandering politicians flew into Copenhagen on their private and government jets to steer the world to a carbon free state - and found that they had to park their jets a country or two away, because there weren't enough parking places in Denmark for all the jets that flew in there.

Extravagance was the first word that came to my mind when this project started. I fielded this to a learned and respected friend (my own qualifier, I know) in the art world, and he defended Heizer's project on the grounds that this is what art can do, it is a great feat and a huge feather in the hat of LACMA. In an environment where MOCALA is on the verge of going bankrupt, raising the profile of an art museum is a survival issue. I conceded his point.

Later, when the rock made its progress in the epic move, crowds flocked to see the fet in progress. People, ordinary non art world people were delighted and charmed. Reporters were asking folks if the rock is art, all said yes that I witnessed in the TV news. Then they asked LACMA people what art is, with feeble results. Here's my answer: art is about the imagination, if it enlarges, that is art. Whether it is great art or not is another question for another time.

And I'll apologize if my comment came across as mean-spirited. I didn't really mean it that way (I very nearly put a smiley after it), I was just having a little fun and couldn't pass up the joke about the rock visiting Paris. The part about Jefferson touring the Continent I posted because that was actually news to me. I didn't realize he got around so far. That's farther than I've ever been (minus my two years in Africa) and he did it all when crossing the ocean was nothing to be taken lightly.

To point out every jot and tittle of the left's self righteousness and hypocrisy would be a more than full time job for a lot of people but very wearisome. What is highly predictable ceases to be interesting or remarkable.

Old Dad said: "Cassandra,It's about 260 miles from Monticello to hiladelphia. One way."

You know what? You're right. I stand corrected. I was passing on something I'd heard from a lecture by a Jefferson "expert" years ago. I blindly, or deafly, accepted it without ever checking (or thinking through). Funny, back when I was reporting at the NYT there was something called "a fact too good to check." Apparently, this was one of those. Thanks. Much appreciated.

I don't understand the "art". California is littered with big rocks, as is Arizona, Nevada, Utah, heck, most of the country. Meanwhile every time it gets rainy half the effin' city there slides down the muddy hills.

Sadly, LACMA spends its money on this kind of drivel. Once you go inside as I have done on several occasions over the last 20 years you see that the paintings are second rate, second rate Picasso, second rate Monet, etc... They have great artists, its just when you see these paintings you don't know why the artists were so great.

Instead one should go to Pasadena to the Norton Simon, a phenomenal collection by a single man. Or to San Marino which is a couple of miles from Pasadena to the Huntington Library and Gardens.

It's not Art, it's DADA Art. DADA Art not surprisingly came about at almost the exact moment in history that Progressivism arrived on scene. This "Rock" is a perfect example of their ideology. The DADA ideology perfectly exemplifies Liberalism as they both exude nothing but Hypocrisy. The "elitists" have decided what is and isnt art for a century, this is the result...